If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Idk about THE REST OF THE WORLD but in America I feel like a lot of people don't care becuase we live in a "me, all me, and right the fuck now" type society. Also middle-class women's opinions are extremely uneducated and easily manipulated by using the think of the children strawman. Hence the war on drugs.

Is this "say vague sentence without further explaining or proving it" day? Comeon, I need reasons people

A direct democracy, with capitalism, would result in the richest few very quickly being able to heavily influence voter decisions in favour of corporate takeover, changes in education favouring various right-wing policies, and perhaps even changing the voting system itself once they have enough power. It's what happened during the industrial revolution. It didn't make life much shittier for the working class when the industrial revolution occurred because england/america was undeveloped. If we were to switch to that system now, however, pretty much everyone who wasn't uber-rich would find their lives much, much shittier.

With the level of bribery in American politics today it's already apparent how much power corporations can wield. Now imagine if, instead of giving a certain politician a couple million for his campaign, a corporation gave every person in america a free tv to vote a certain way. Now, instead of one guy who has to worry about the pressures of a voter base, activist groups, etc. the vote is being controlled by millions of joe-shmoes who will vote to allow less restrictions on pollutants because they're getting a free blowjob for every ballot they check "yes" on.

A direct democracy, with capitalism, would result in the richest few very quickly being able to heavily influence voter decisions in favour of corporate takeover, changes in education favouring various right-wing policies, and perhaps even changing the voting system itself once they have enough power. It's what happened during the industrial revolution. It didn't make life much shittier for the working class when the industrial revolution occurred because england/america was undeveloped. If we were to switch to that system now, however, pretty much everyone who wasn't uber-rich would find their lives much, much shittier.

I don't see that happening considering that America did not practice direct democracy during the industrial revolution. The reason economic injustice and inequality was at a peak back then was because America had just switched from an agricultural based economy (which required little to no economic regulation) to an industrial based economy (which obviously needed tons of economic regulation). Worker exploitation became a problem (especially when slavery and indentured servitude were banned), as well as large and monopolistic companies possessing and manipulating most of the nation's capital and labour. The political practices and ideals of the 18th century became obsolete, and required the inevitable abolishment of the totally free market

With the level of bribery in American politics today it's already apparent how much power corporations can wield. Now imagine if, instead of giving a certain politician a couple million for his campaign, a corporation gave every person in america a free tv to vote a certain way. Now, instead of one guy who has to worry about the pressures of a voter base, activist groups, etc. the vote is being controlled by millions of joe-shmoes who will vote to allow less restrictions on pollutants because they're getting a free blowjob for every ballot they check "yes" on.

Hmm, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure it'd be MUCH easier to bribe an individual rather than a whole demographic. I don't know the street price of a BJ these days, but to give MILLIONS of people them would be a lightyears harder then giving one dude a continuous supply of BJs. Even if they were able to acquire all of the capital, time, and labour to do such operations, overproduction and devaluation of commodities would be a problem within a few years

I don't see that happening considering that America did not practice direct democracy during the industrial revolution. The reason economic injustice and inequality was at a peak back then was because America had just switched from an agricultural based economy (which required little to no economic regulation) to an industrial based economy (which obviously needed tons of economic regulation). Worker exploitation became a problem (especially when slavery and indentured servitude were banned), as well as large and monopolistic companies possessing and manipulating most of the nation's capital and labour. The political practices and ideals of the 18th century became obsolete, and required the inevitable abolishment of the totally free market

Hmm, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure it'd be MUCH easier to bribe an individual rather than a whole demographic. I don't know the street price of a BJ these days, but to give MILLIONS of people them would be a lightyears harder then giving one dude a continuous supply of BJs. Even if they were able to acquire all of the capital, time, and labour to do such operations, overproduction and devaluation of commodities would be a problem within a few years

Celery, you're once again focusing on America as if it's a good example of representative democracy. I need you to understand this right now: America has one of the shittiest systems of democracy in the world. Their lack of party solidarity, allowance of huge campaign contributions, and bipartisan system make America a cess pool of corporate control.

However, the one thing that's stopping it from being a completely right-wing system is the pressure voters place on politicians who, regardless of your opinion of them, typically are smarter than the average person. Americans vote for politicians to do things because they can work through the bureaucracy and particulars of the system to create an actual, working law, and it takes hours of thought, dedication, and debate to make a working one. How are we going to make every voice heard on changes we could make when there's 300 million people who all have opinions? How are we going to ratify various laws and aspects of the constitution? Who decides what can be brought up as a law and what can't be? And if we somehow get by all that: Do you think every american will take several hours every day to sit down and listen to the reading of a law? No, they won't. Most will be apathetic enough that they'll be suaded by whatever corporation gives them a new TV.

Direct democracy would never work in any population larger than a small town.

Celery, you're once again focusing on America as if it's a good example of representative democracy. I need you to understand this right now: America has one of the shittiest systems of democracy in the world. Their lack of party solidarity, allowance of huge campaign contributions, and bipartisan system make America a cess pool of corporate control.

I used America as an example because you used it as an example! The very same could be used for any Western country at the time

However, the one thing that's stopping it from being a completely right-wing system is the pressure voters place on politicians who, regardless of your opinion of them, typically are smarter than the average person. Americans vote for politicians to do things because they can work through the bureaucracy and particulars of the system to create an actual, working law, and it takes hours of thought, dedication, and debate to make a working one.

Why do we need to vote for people to wade through the stubborn and uncompromisable bureaucracy when they created it in the first place? It's like walking up a down escalator

How are we going to make every voice heard on changes we could make when there's 300 million people who all have opinions?

The same could be said about the present, how are we going to satisfy people's wants and needs by giving them very limited and corruptible options?

Who decides what can be brought up as a law and what can't be?

The establishment of direct democracy doesn't imply the complete destruction of the previous system. A senate of elected representatives could still be established to introduce laws and bills, which the public could later vote on

And if we somehow get by all that: Do you think every american will take several hours every day to sit down and listen to the reading of a law? No, they won't. Most will be apathetic enough that they'll be suaded by whatever corporation gives them a new TV.

Of course it seems like people will be disinterested in bills and laws from a present perspective, the current system encourages parties, which spoon feeds and distorts them to for the public. I believe (THEORETICALLY maybe) that people will be more encouraged to partake in voting and political discussion once the blinders are taken off.

However, I am still a die hard Communist, don't worry. But, if I were some kind of sadist and wanted to delay the inevitable collapse of capitalism by a decade or so through appeasing people, I'd use this system

No, I used to believe in trickle-down economics, you got me to swear off that bullshit. And I was fucking around with anarcho-capitalism, that's a real dumb shit fucking idea. Idk what the fuck I believe anymore tbh. I just wanna live in a society where I can be rewarded for working my ass off but no matter what kind of system you live in you still get fucked over.